יד מ"ט הא אית ליה קלא והא לית ליה קלא
14 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: In the case of heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'brothers'. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> who are about to divide the estate among themselves, whatever is worn by them will [also] be assessed [and taken into account], but that which is worn by their sons and daughters is not assessed [and not taken into account].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it would be a degradation to them to be forced to appear before the court. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> R. Papa said: There are circumstances when even that which is worn by the heirs themselves is not assessed. This exception applies to the eldest of the heirs,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In charge of the administration of the affairs of the heirs. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> as it is in the interest of them all that his words should be respected. 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee does not incur thereby any liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.B.M. 36a. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> This ruling unquestionably applies to an unpaid bailee handing over his charge to a paid bailee in which case there is a definite improvement in the care; but even when a paid bailee hands over his charge to an unpaid bailee where there is definitely a decrease in the care, still he thereby incurs no liability, since he transfers his charge to a responsible person. Raba, however, said: One bailee handing over his charge to another bailee becomes liable for all consequences. This ruling unquestionably holds good in the case of a paid bailee handing over his charge to an unpaid bailee where there is a definite decrease in the care; but even when an unpaid bailee hands over his charge to a paid bailee, where there is definitely an improvement in the care, still he becomes liable for all consequences, as the depositor may say [to the original bailee]: You would be trusted by me [should occasion demand] an oath [from you], but your substitute would not be trusted by me in the oath [which he may be required to take].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The original bailee has thus committed a breach of the trust. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> 'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: The law is that distraint may be made on slaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 128a. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Said R. Nahman to 'Ulla: Did R. Eleazar apply this statement even in the case of heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who inherited the slaves; v. supra p. 31. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> [of the debtor]? — No, Only to the debtor himself. To the debtor himself? Could not a debt be collected even from the cloak upon his shoulder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then speak about slaves? ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — We are dealing here with a case where a slave was mortgaged,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the debtor who had meanwhile died. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> as in the case stated by Raba, for Raba said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 33b and B.B. 44b. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> Where a debtor mortgaged his slave and then sold him [to another person], the creditor may distrain on him [in the hands of the purchaser]. But where an ox was mortgaged and afterwards sold, the creditor cannot distrain on it [in the hands of the purchaser], the reason [for the distinction] being that in the former case the transaction of the mortgage aroused public interest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the purchaser was no doubt aware of it and should consequently not have bought it. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> whereas in the latter case no public interest was aroused.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the purchaser is not to blame. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>